The most competitive Congressional contest in Massachusetts is the Richard Tisei-John Tierney race. Congressman Tierney has been barraged with an onslaught of negative publicity over his family and the gambling issue, and outside money has been deployed in large amounts to continue the assault on Tierney. It may be having a real impact.
The Boston Globe, in the same survey showing Elizabeth Warren leading Scott Brown, shows Richard Tisei opening up a six point lead on John Tierney, 37% to 31%, with 30% undecided. Tierney is polling below 60% with Democrats, a fatal number if it holds. (54% Tierney, 10% Tisei, 34% undecided). Tisei has a big lead with independents, at 39% to 23%, with 30% undecided. With Republicans Tisei is at 70%, and that number will likely go up by election time.
Republicans have identified Tierney early on as a vulnerable Democratic incumbent, and have put in some big dollars to try to oust him. The Young Guns PAC has poured about $900,000 into this race, and the NRCC close to $1 million. The Salem News is reporting that Democratic Super PAC “House Majority” has pulled a $630,000 media buy designed to help Tierney. That is not a good sign for the Tierney campaign.
The Salem News story has Congressman Tierney attacking the methodology of the Globe poll, claiming that it over-sampled Republicans. I guess Republicans are not the only folks griping about survey methodology. I don’t see much merit in the methodology argument, no matter which side is making the complaint. I have yet to see an attack on methodology from any campaign that was listed as being ahead. Hmmmm.
The campaign has a way to go, and it is a bit too early to be writing John Tierney off, but Richard Tisei has to be encouraged by the results. The Congressional race to watch in Massachusetts.
Scott Brown, in response to a David Gregory question, said that his ideal Supreme Court Justice was Antonin Scalia. I think he realized his error and tried to walk it back, but the right answer for him was Anthony Kennedy, a justice considered to be a centrist who tends to swing between the sides. When you are not willing to say that you are going to vote for Mitch McConnell for Leader I don’t believe that the Scalia response fit in with Brown’s debate strategy. Democrats were quick to pounce, and it was indeed an error by Scott Brown.
John Dennis, a Tea Party Republican running against Nancy Pelosi, has unveiled a new ad. It really needs work, but it is so odd that I just had to post. Don’t give up your day job John.
Paul Ryan, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, told Chris Wallace that he “did not have the time” to explain how the Romney tax plan was “revenue neutral”. In fact Ryan refused to even say what the number was that would need to be made up to be revenue neutral. A little bit of explanation.
The Romney plan calls for a 20% across the board tax cut, with the loss of revenue being made up by the elimination of “tax breaks”. When he does discuss it Romney has a tendency to say that the tax breaks to be eliminated will be ones largely utilized by upper income taxpayers. What he never says is what tax breaks, and what income level would be impacted. Hence the Democratic charge that Romney will eliminate tax preferences that largely benefit the middle class, and in so doing raise taxes on that category. The argument has gotten a bit wonky, with even Romney supporters conceding that to make the numbers work the definition of middle class needs to be lowered. I think all agree that even if you stretch it a bit taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be in for a tax increase under the “Romney plan”. Want the best back and forth on this? Check out Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog over at the Washington Post.
Before you can even get to the point where we argue about elimination of tax breaks to “pay” for the tax cuts there has to be some agreement on how much we will have to make up. What is the cost of the Romney plan? In the clip Chris Wallace does not even get an opportunity to ask about the disagreements on the supporting math of tax break eliminations. He simply asked how much the Romney plan will cost as a starting point. Can’t really argue about the tax breaks until we agree on how much it is that we need to make up. Ryan will not even estimate THAT number, pointedly refusing to even give an estimate of cost to the Romney plan. He just says that there is “not enough time”.
It is quite clear that the Romney numbers simply don’t work, both from a math perspective and especially from a political perspective. Hammering income earners between $100,000 and $200,000 to provide tax breaks for folks above that, in my opinion, can’t be sold to anyone, including Republicans. You can expect the President to ask Mitt Romney to make time for the explanation at the first debate this week. No time for you will not be acceptable as a response!
The new Boston Globe survey on the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race came out today, showing the inexorable drift towards Elizabeth Warren that Suffolk had picked up a week or so ago. This drift comes in spite of voters having a favorable opinion of Scott Brown’s job performance. The survey please!
Elizabeth Warren leads Scott Brown by a 43% to 38% margin, with 18% still undecided. The poll margin of error was 4.4%. So the race is tight, with a big block of undecided holding the balance. Lifting the hood, in my opinion, shows the difficult road ahead for Brown. Brown leads among those voters who consider themselves “independent” by a 45% to 23% margin, which is simply not enough. This group has 18% undecided. Brown’s margin over Martha Coakley was substantially higher with independents, and in a Presidential election year he simply needs a bigger margin with independents. I discussed independents in this race, and the impact of Elizabeth Warren peeling away crossover votes from Scott Brown in an earlier post. How bad is the “Romney effect” for Scott Brown? The numbers don’t paint a pretty picture.
Obama voters support Elizabeth Warren by a 70% to 9% margin, with 20% undecided. For you folks wondering why Elizabeth Warren is doing her best to link Scott Brown with Mitt Romney and the Republican brand look no further. It is akin to throwing him an 800 pound anchor. As he looks to persuade the undecideds in his race he is looking at another ugly number, as those folks favor President Obama by a 67% to 7% margin.
The President leads his race with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts by a 57% to 30% margin, with 11% undecided. 27% is a whopping margin, and even if it narrows the dead weight of Mitt Romney is breaking Scott Brown’s back. Romney has a 60% unfavorable rating in Massachusetts, deeply underwater.
A little while back I happened to catch independent analyst Charlie Cook on Morning Joe, where he said (despite a Scott Brown lead in the polls) that Brown would have to peel off 300,000 Obama voters in order to win the race, and that we might wake up to an 8 point Warren win due to the makeup of the State. Cook seemed to be preparing the Brown supporters on the panel for the drift he knew was coming. Democrats should hold the celebrations, but if Warren can hold her own from this point forward I think the Obama tide will take Scott Brown out to sea.
Joss Stone is a great artist who already has done some fabulous work with some of the icons of rock, including Jeff Beck. She covers Broken Bells “The High Road”, and it is a spectacular effort. She is at the Hampton Beach Casino on October 12th.
As the Presidential race comes into the home stretch is there a more important “swing” state than neighboring New Hampshire? The Granite State has four electoral votes, but its influence far outweighs those four votes. If Al Gore had won New Hampshire George W. Bush would today be an ex-Governor of Texas. Democrats have never forgotten that lesson. New polling by Marist and NBC shows President Obama widening his lead in New Hampshire, and putting himself into the drivers seat in the Granite State.
New Hampshire, in the mid-terms, went solidly Republican, with the GOP sweeping to control of both Houses of the Legislature. I think it is fair to rate it as a former red state that is now purple, with a strong streak of independence. Democratic Governor John Lynch is retiring, creating an open seat race for Governor, which was also polled by Marist.
President Obama has opened a 7 point lead on Governor Romney in New Hampshire, leading by a 51% to 44% margin, with 4% undecided, and 1% for third party candidates (others). There is not a lot of room to move for either candidate, with only 4% undecided, but the President does not need to move much at 51%.
The President has moved into the lead from the dead heat recorded by Marist in June, which had the race deadlocked, with each candidate at 45%. This has come despite the fact that the right track/wrong track question has NH voters believing we are on the wrong track by a 51% to 44% margin.
Two other survey questions, in my opinion, are critical. The first is the job rating for the President. The President’s job approval rating is 50%, with 45% not approving. The second is the favorable/unfavorable question. “Do you have a favorable/unfavorable impression of ….”. On that question the President has a 54% favorable and a 43% unfavorable, while Romney is underwater at 52% unfavorable, and 43% favorable. Marist also measured the Vice Presidential candidates, and Paul Ryan was also underwater at 46% unfavorable, 42% favorable, and 13% undecided. (Yes of course Joe Biden was also underwater, but that, in my opinion, is less relevant to this race.)
I think the public perception of Romney has begun to harden, and this race shall remain fluid for only a short period of time. Whatever it is they are thinking about doing over at Romney HQ they better start moving, because the train is pulling out of the station.
The open seat race for Governor is very tight, with Democrat Maggie Hassan holding a two point edge at 47% to 45% over Republican Ovide Lamontagne, with 7% undecided. Lots of time and room for change in that one, although I suspect that the antics of the Republican Legislature, and the slippage by Romney, will give a slight edge to Hassan as we come down the stretch.
Suffolk University and pollster David Paleologos have just released a new survey conducted in Virginia. Paleologos surveyed the Presidential race, as well as the big Senate showdown between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican George Allen. Some interesting results.
On the Presidential side President Obama clings to a slight lead that is within the statistical margin of error. From the Suffolk Press Release:
BOSTON – President Barack Obama (46 percent) clings to a 2-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney (44 percent), in a swing-state nail-biter, according to a Suffolk University/NBC12 (WWBT-Richmond) poll of likely general-election voters in Virginia. Seven percent were undecided.
The race is close – with survey results within the statistical margin of error – despite a decided popularity advantage for Obama. He boasted a +8 (52 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable) to Romney’s -3 (42 percent favorable to 45 percent unfavorable).
“Barack Obama shows personal popularity and strength, especially outside of the D.C. area in northern Virginia,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “However, with job approval and head-to-head numbers stuck at 46 percent, it will be a significant challenge for Obama to convince the remaining undecided voters to re-elect him.”
The survey also asked Virginia residents about “Obamacare”. By a wide margin (51% to 38%) these folks have a negative view of the health care reform bill tied so closely to the President. But with Mitt Romney still tripping over the health care issue it appears that he is not making the types of gains that may have been achievable politically for him. And although I did not see “Medicare” in the Suffolk survey there is no question that issue is creating a drag on Romney politically. A new Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation survey, which included Virginia, Florida, and Ohio, showed 51% of senior citizens rating Medicare as “extremely important.” Among that group (combined three states) President Obama leads Governor Romney by a 59% to 36% margin. Among seniors that feel that Medicare is “very important” the President leads by a 53% to 43% margin. That is how you define “political drag”. In that context the selection of Paul Ryan is not panning out in the way Mitt Romney hoped that it would.
So Virginia is still in play, but Romney does not appear to have many states where he can coast. It is a critical state for him, and these numbers show that he will continue to have no choice but to pour more resources into the Old Dominion. The race is close, but when asked who they “thought would win” the race for President 53% thought President Obama would win, to 30% who thought Romney would win, with 17% not sure. Not much confidence in Mitt Romney’s chances in Virginia.
Massachusetts is not the only state with a hotly contested Senate race. In Virginia former Governor Tim Kaine, the Democrat, is locked in a very tight battle with former Senator George Allen. Suffolk has this race in a dead heat at 44% each, with 12% undecided. Control of the U.S. Senate may hinge on the Massachusetts and Virginia Senate races, and this one is as close as it can be. We will follow it a bit more closely in the coming weeks.
More great work from Suffolk University and pollster David Paleologos.
The electoral map has taken a significant turn for the worse for Mitt Romney, with swing state polling all heading in the wrong direction for the Republican nominee. While it is too early for Team Obama to begin spiking the ball Romney just cannot seem to put together a cogent message, and is truly strained and awkward on the campaign trail. The latest statement to cause confusion is Romney pointing to his Massachusetts Health Care Plan as proof that he has empathy, as he offered universal coverage, and actually got 100% of the state’s children covered. Does that mean he now favors the federal health care (CHIPS) program for children?
Obviously there has been much hand wringing with Republican elites, with Peggy Noonan and Bill Kristol in particular coming down pretty hard on the campaign, and the candidate. Noonan, in the Wall Street Journal:
It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. “Mitt, this isn’t working.”
Ouch! Kristol has said that the Romney strategy is all wrong in that his attempt to make this a “referendum” election in which he says nothing but we must replace Barack Obama is failing, and that it is a “choice” election, in which voters will choose which vision offered for the future is best for the country.
Which means Mitt Romney should probably stop saying, as he did yesterday in Colorado, “The American people cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama, and that’s why I am going to become president of the United States!” He should say instead, “Paul Ryan and I have a pro-growth, pro-reform, pro-opportunity agenda for America—and we look forward to having the honor of carrying out that agenda over the next four years.”
Kristol’s complaint has been echoed among conservative pundits for some time now. Romney needs to offer a specific vision, and get into policy details, and offer that real “choice” to the American public. I tend to agree, but I really wonder how Romney does that when the two centerpieces of his campaign, tax cuts, and the repeal of ObamaCare, are riddled with math errors and conflicts with prior positions. His tax position, up to this very minute, is producing conflicting statements from the campaign. His obvious gaffe on the 47% issue has only added to his difficulties.
Some non-conservative pundits have also commented. Ron Brownstein over at National Journal attributes Romney’s current problems to his right tack in the Republican primaries.
Romney’s biggest general-election problem is that he did not believe he could beat a GOP primary field with no competitor more formidable than Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich without tacking sharply right on key issues. Romney repeatedly took policy positions that minimized his risks during the spring but have multiplied his challenges in the fall. His fate isn’t sealed, but the choices he made in the primaries have left him with a path to victory so narrow that it might daunt Indiana Jones. “To secure the nomination, they made … decisions about immigration, tax cuts, and a whole host of other issues that had no strategic vision,” said John Weaver, a senior strategist for John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “So he’s now trapped demographically and doesn’t even seem to understand it.”
Brownstein is, in my opinion, only half right. Romney did indeed take positions that most felt would be untenable in a general election. I believe his campaign recognized that as evidenced by the etch a sketch comment by Eric Fehrnstrom. But should Romney have moderated his positions before winning the nomination? Brownstein seems to forget that on at least two occasions conservatives began to rally to opponents, such as Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, whose appeal was driven by some hard right rhetoric. Romney needed, in this Republican Party, to out-bid these candidates with the right, and he did what he needed to do in that process. But conservative suspicion of Romney has prevented the etch-a-sketch makeover, and he has been unable to offer more moderate positions. Romney, at heart, is a moderate technocrat very comfortable in corporate board rooms, but much less comfortable on the campaign trail. His forced “everyday” persona only makes him look more ridiculous.
I think Fareed Zakaria over at the Post has it right on the money. Romney is in a straight jacket that has the Republican brand all over it.
The Republican Party has imposed a new kind of political correctness on its leaders. They cannot speak certain words (taxes) or speculate about certain ideas (immigration amnesty) because these are forbidden. Romney has tried to run a campaign while not running afoul of his party’s strictures. As a result, he has twisted himself into a pretzel, speaking vacuously, avoiding specifics and refusing to provide any serious plans for the most important issues of the day. That’s a straitjacket that even Peggy Noonan’s eloquence cannot get him out of.
Romney has the debates with the President as possibly his last hope to turn this thing around. But he needs to win the debate with himself before he can win the debate with the President.
President Obama and Mitt Romney both appeared on NBC’s “Education Nation”, which has covered some fairly interesting educational ground in the past. Both covered some interesting topics, and after you take out some of the political nuances there appears to be more similarities than either would care to admit. The President, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, have taken lots of heat for the “Race to the Top” program from the teacher unions (Methuen’s affiliate of the Massachusetts Teachers Association refused to sign on to the Race to the Top application, preventing the District from participating in the program). The President obviously takes a substantially more diplomatic tact relative to the teacher unions, but has come down mostly on the reform side, including support for charter schools. With groups like DFER (Democrats for Education Reform), the President, and many Democratic Mayors, like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa leading reform efforts, tensions with the Teacher Unions have now arisen. The New York Times highlighted that tension with today’s story on the increased giving by Teacher Unions to Republicans.
Romney was much more direct in his criticism of teacher unions, but did make an interesting point that I wish had been explored further. Romney advocated that teacher unions be prohibited from making political contributions, arguing that it created “conflicts of interest”, as often times teacher unions may be negotiating with elected officials who have received these contributions. A fair point, and one that shows Romney at least tipping his hat to the inherent problems that money brings to politics. But nobody asked whether he felt the same principles applied to other “conflicts of interest”, such as members of Congress taking money from business interests when they are writing regulations into law that directly impact those interests. The examples are too numerous to cite. Should Romney be asked if contributions in that category also constitute “conflicts of interest”, and if so should they be prohibited?
A clear area of difference was Romney coming out against federal “Common Core” curriculum standards. He essentially said that federal financial inducements to incentivize state adoptions of Common Core would be counter-productive. The clips are long, but worthwhile. One of the rare moments where substance has been discussed during this campaign.
